ReviewProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2019
General lack of structural characterization of chemically synthesized long peptides.
Review in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting Leukopoiesis: Pharmacological and Biotechnological Strategies for the Treatment of Leukopenia.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Recombinant DNA the Bio-Revolution, Between Promise, Hurdles, and Achievements.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Unlocking the power of antimicrobial peptides: advances in production, optimization, and therapeutics.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Further assessments of ligase LplA-mediated modifications of proteins in vitro and in cellulo.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
- Biochemistry, structure, and cellular internalization of a four nanobody-bearing Fc dimer.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021Article
- MCH-R1 Antagonist GPS18169, a Pseudopeptide, Is a Peripheral Anti-Obesity Agent in Mice.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many peptide chemistry scientists have been reporting extremely interesting work on the basis of chemical peptides for which the only characterization was their purity, mass, and biological activity. It seems slightly overenthusiastic, as many of these structures should be thoroughly characterized first to demonstrate the uniqueness of the structure, as opposed to the uniqueness of the sequence. Among the peptides of identical sequences in the final chemical preparation, what amount of well-folded peptide supports the measured activity? The activity of a peptide preparation cannot prove the purity of the desired peptide. Therefore, greater care should be taken in characterizing peptides, particularly those coming from chemical synthesis. At a time when the pharmaceutical industry is changing its paradigm by moving substantially from small molecules to biologics to better serve patients' needs, it is important to understand the limitations of the descriptions of these products and to start to apply the same "good laboratory practices" to our peptide research. Here, we attempt to delineate how synthetic peptides are described and characterized and what will be needed to describe them in regards to how they are well-folded and homogeneous in their tertiary structure. Older studies were done when the tools were not yet discovered, but more recent publications are still lacking proper descriptions of these peptides. Modern tools of analysis are capable of segregating folded and unfolded peptides, even if the preparation is biologically active.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.